My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
13
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
121713
>
13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2013 1:21:52 PM
Creation date
12/9/2013 12:47:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/17/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comments on Historic Preservation Policies <br /> November 10, 2013 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Then over the last seven years or so, at the urging of an organized opposition group, <br /> the City took a more aggressive architectural control position, denying or delaying a <br /> whole series of proposed property improvements in downtown. Owning and improving <br /> older buildings in downtown Pleasanton has become a liability, with owners complaining <br /> that the approval processes are long, expensive, and uncertain, with projects so <br /> burdened they are unfeasible to build. <br /> Those project by project neighborhood fights led to formation of the Historic <br /> Preservation Task Force, which was formed to clarify the rules, and streamline the <br /> process so property improvement could once again go forward in downtown <br /> Pleasanton. <br /> Unfortunately, some of the proposed historic preservation policies under consideration <br /> will do little for historic preservation, while detracting from downtown vitality by giving <br /> opponents more and sharper tools with which to obstruct property improvement. For <br /> example: <br /> 1. Widespread downzoning <br /> Current Standard: R-1 Zone: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 40% maximum <br /> -Proposed Standard: Keeps the above, and adds: <br /> "Policy 8. Compatibility of new single-family homes or modifications to existing single- <br /> family homes with the immediate neighborhood (i.e., single-family homes on lots within <br /> 150 feet of the subject lot) relative to mass and bulk shall be assumed if the proposed <br /> FAR does not exceed the average FAR of the single-family homes in the immediate <br /> neighborhood by more than 25 percent.. . . ." (underlining added) <br /> -Unrelated to historic preservation: Floor area ratio (FAR) has nothing to do with <br /> historic preservation. <br /> -Increased uncertainty. This regulation is so complicated, no property owner will <br /> know what it's permitted FAR is. The property owner would have to know the exact lot <br /> sizes and exact home sizes for 25 to 75 homes within 150 feet of his property to even <br /> calculate his permitted floor area. <br /> -Erratic outcomes. The outcomes of this Rube Goldberg formula, once applied, <br /> are likely to be highly erratic, depending on whether one's neighbors happen to have, <br /> on average, smaller or larger homes. <br /> -Downzoning! The compatibility standard downzones the entire downtown <br /> residential neighborhood while disguising itself as a historic preservation policy. <br /> Recommendation: Delete the proposed Policy 8. <br /> 2. Mandates Pre 1942 Architecture. <br /> -Proposed Standard: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.